Lewisham Council are to hold a public consultation on their plans to create a camp for travellers on the site of the former Watergate School, near Ladywell Station. The previous site, on Thurston Road, has been closed and the land earmarked for development.

At a mayor and cabinet meeting. Church Grove residents in ladywell aren't happy. Consultation will be held on using street as traveller site.UPDATE: Local residents opposed to the proposal have posted a link on Twitter to Google Streetview, showing how narrow the approach to the site is, suggesting that it is not ideal for caravans and other wide vehicles.

82
comments:

Hell no. ...I would love to live rent free in zone 2. Travellers these days don't travel, they set up home. Why should they be given that right and no one else if they don't move on after so many weeks?

The traveller community has very little interest in any form of social integration outwith their own number. They'll say so themselves. This approach doesn't contribute to any form of social cohesion or community spirit locally. But then they need a place to live. I'm torn on this one.

Sorry - unacceptable. There are plenty of tax paying people who would love to live in that space, if it had planning etc. I will contact my councillor about It and encourage others to do so too. It is the only way to have an impact on decision making and councillors should be responsive to local desires. Incidentally, it is not the mung eating residents who suffer from the travellers. Rather it is a much poorer section of society who don't necessarily have a strong articulate voice.

The Romany didn't turn up in England until the late 15th early 16th Century according to a book I have read on the Elizabethan underworld, and their language has clear links to hindustani and pushtu. The Irish Travellers seem to be of different origin.

Both groups get an incredibly raw deal - told they should settle and not given opportunities to do so - and under-provided with legal sites so that if you have got a berth you might understandbly be reluctant to move on. And it often seems to be forgotten that the Romany in Nazi controlled Europe disappeared by tens if not hundreds of thousands into the death camps or were attacked and exterminated on the spot by collaborators whose prejudices had suddenly become authorised policy.

The Thurston Road site closed years ago (you used to be overlooking it from the up platforms at Lewisham Station) and I heard quite a lot of grumbling from fellow commuters then.

I suppose the Council are obliged to consult but it seems a pretty pointless exercise. No-one is going to be in favour. At the most you'll get those like me and the second anonymous who can see that there is a principle that says they should be allowed a place somewhere.

There's no doubt that provision needs to be made, but is inner London a good choice?

Years back I had to visit the Thurston Road site - it wasn't a pleasant experience and I think it would have deepened pretty much anyone's negative stereotypes. I'd have HATED having the site close to me.

It's rather a sad feature of that sub-culture that it views everyone outside the group as marks.

Well you could say that opposing travellers as a whole is racist. Have you met them all? Have you met the ones who will be living on this site? No? Well you're grouping them together and prejudging them as all being the same. That's pretty much a racist view.

I don't agree that you could call opposing a traveller site being located locally racist, any more than you could accuse someone who objected to a new housing development or a new pub in the neighbourhood racist. In all these cases, it's not about the people as individuals, but the effect of the development on your quality of life. Whether you disagree with their objections or not, it's wrong to deny them their opportunity to express their views on the (false) grounds of racism.

Does anyone know who came up with this proposed site in particular? Has the traveller community expressed interest in moving there, or did Lewisham Council just decide that was a good place to put it in?

@THNickRead again - I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that the sub-culture is one that tends to view outsiders as exploitable. It's a fairly well documented and sociologically realised aspect of the various traveller cultures (excepting new age). As a sub-culture it encourages loyalty to each other and disparages others. Sort of racist one might even say.

I live about three streets away, yes it might well lower the value of my house but why is that? Could it be because of the racist perceptions of a fairly bigoted society.

Most of my friends are happy to voice incredibly negative views of travellers and gypsies, and yet they have never met one, or even lived near one. I'm willing to bet that the majority of people living in Ladywell haven't either.

I often notice that lovely little street driving past and think it looks sooo cute. I even looked up the prices of those houses online and was surprised but happy to see that no house has sold there since around 2000 so i imagine the residents are pretty happy also!

How they could even suggest a gypsy camp at the end of this little street is beyond me.

@Pete - "I live about three streets away, yes it might well lower the value of my house but why is that? Could it be because of the racist perceptions of a fairly bigoted society"

Mate I am Irish so have seen them in action for years at home. Believe me , it wont be the 'racist perceptions of a fairly bigoted society' that will affect your house value... it will be the fly tipping, illegal dumping, abandoned vehicles, noise, dogs, etc.... which will. You can afford to be all open-minded and non-judgemental now but I give you 3 months to change your mind if this does get the go ahead.

There are some very good comments attached to that Newshopper article which far more sensibly set out why the site shouldn't be used than the old dog whistle that equates to "all travelers are thieving scum".

Why do they always go for the sympathy vote."4 of my children are suffering from mental health problems,and me depression".That's until they get what they want, then watch the anti-social behaviour start.

Take a look though half of these posts and replace the word "travellers", "gypsies" or even the delightful "pikeys" with "blacks", "Jews", "Irish" or "Arabs" and you might see where the accusations of racism are coming from.

Whether this particular site is a good idea is a different matter, but it's clear that few of the objections are based on such niceties as access, parking, services and amenities and planning policy.

I am happy to take that back. I thought only Romany were recognised as an ethnic group. But the point is, people are not concerned because of the colour of their skin, their cultural beliefs or any other irrational racial prejudices but because of the very real practical problems associated with camp sites.

'happy to take that back' but only after you've seen the link to a report that references two acts of law?

I actually agree that most of these comments aren't racist and seem to be more concerned with the size of the plot, but most seem quite ignorant (such as not knowing that both Roma Gypsies and Irish Travellers are classed as separate racial groups :)) and ignorance can easily slip into prejudice into racism...

I think this is a ridiculous place for the site, would only provide 9 plots and the travellers don't want it either! The lorry park behind Laurence House in Catford seems much more sensible.

It doesn't matter what race/ethnic group is involved, it is quite obvious that Church Grove is not a suitable place for a travellers' site. I've walked up there once or twice and my impression is that many larger cars would struggle to get down that road, never mind caravans. What is the council thinking of?

Yes, it did make me smile when I saw that the council has rejected the idea of using a site with far better access in Catford which happens to be overlooked by the council buildings. I wonder why that might be?

The site at Thurston Road was for 17 pitches but less than half were in use.

The council considered the options of compensating travellers for their licences, providing housing or alternative site.

Consultation on Church Grove took place in 2007 and planning approval for 5 pitches was granted.

I think in late 2008 the travellers expressed concerns about the Church Grove site and struck a deal with the council to forgo their licences.

When protestors were leaping up and down on Lewisham Bridge School protecting the rights of travellers, they didn't seem to know they had moved on.

The latest assessment of Travellers needs began 5-6 months before the planning application was allowed to lapse by the council in April.

If I remember correctly a resident applied for a judicial review June 2008 which was refused, leave to appeal was refused in November 2008.

Why did the council, go to the expense of consulting the travellers and residents, draw up plans and designs, consult the enviromental agency, apply for planning permission and then sit on their hands for 2-3 years?

Now that are back at square one.

Did the Mayor ask why they don't just re sumbit their original plans without consultation?

Did the Mayor ask why The Travellers had concerns about the Church Grove site and moved on?

The residents of Brockley shine yet again. As Fr... says, replace 'traveler' with any other group designation and these comments would be unmistakably deeply offensive, but some how it's ok to talk about travelers this way. And the real star of the show is that many of the anti-traveler commenters don't know - beyond the fact that 'traveler' doesn't indicate anti-social behavior but rather recognized ethnicities - that Ladywell is in Zone 3 as someone else also pointed out. Nimbys of Brockley, I salute you.

By definition they're not Brockley NIMBYs since it isn't in Brockley. They're either Ladywell NIMBYs or they're people from Brockley (and all the other areas that read this blog) who recognise the reasonableness of the arguments against the plan, rather than screaming racism.

What about the residents of brockley who do not scream blue murder? Either we are not residents of brockley, which is demonstrably false, or your lazy stereotype is pointless.

Emotive issues like this make the antis far more vocal than the ambivalent, as always. The reaction of SOME is only representative of those with those views. Nick reported the facts (funny how the anons who accuse him of only running positive propaganda to increase house prices or make the conical look great are a little quiet) people have gone AARGH! I agree that some of the comments have been nasty and reactionary but stop with attempting to lump all brockleyites together.

You say "The residents of Brockley shine yet again" if you were to replace "residents" with blacks or Jews there would be uproar. It's a stupid, childlike argument isn't it? Please don't use it again

@ ??? "Either we are not residents of brockley, which is demonstrably false, or your lazy stereotype is pointless."

So you're saying that none of the NIMBYs that have voiced an ugly and ignorant (on 2 counts) opinion about a plan for Ladywell, reside in Brockley. (oh wait, that's demonstrably false) Or that I am stereotyping by pointing out a loathsome tendency on this blog that is called "Brockley Central"?

I myself am a resident of Brockley and while I enjoy sharing the pavements with the people that work hard to make the neighborhood a nicer place, it makes me sad that I share the pavements with the people that I address in my comment.

Week after week they rear their bigoted heads on this blog. Admittedly, it must be difficult for Nick to try to moderate it. But, seriously, I think it makes the neighborhood look bad when this blog hosts a parade of ugly unqualified assertions that are either hysterical finger-pointing or blatant contempt for an ethnic group.

The truly sad thing for me is the occasion when the people that are working hard to make the neighborhood a nicer place happen to be the same people that think this comes by excluding others with blanket assertions about class, wealth, ethnicity and mental health. Clearly, this isn't everyone, but the ugliest voices often tend to be the loudest.

Brockley can change for the worst. Already since the ELL, even taking into account a couple of new restaurants, the balance in Brockley has been negative.

The Council can continue to pile benefit seekers and related institutions in Brockley/Ladywell instead of promoting an healthier balance with tax payers. So Brockley will continue to regress with no shops on the high street, falling house prices and violence in the street.

Fundamentally I believe nobody cares if you live in a caravan or in a car, however you have to expect to pay for the land like everyone else, to go to work and pay tax, and to send your children to school every day; and why not, work in the local charity shop if you have spare time.

Lewisham Council has a clear policy of punishing those who do work: high council tax, little investment in education or new schools (including closing the libraries), complacency with developers to reduce the housing standards... and to cherish those who take while sitting at home.

England will not come out of recession if hard working people are punished all the time to pay for people that do not want to do thier part in society.

@NBIMBY - the trouble is you are doing all the same things your criticising other people for:

- generalising about people- accusing people of doing things they haven't done- saying that you don't want to live in the same area as people who are different to you- complaining that the actions of others are dragging the area down

So how about, instead of telling people to shut up because they make the place look bad, you just use this blog to explain to people how and why they need not worry about a campsite opening up on their road and why the Council is exactly right to have chosen this location out of all 40 considered.

I believe it's possible to express concerns about the location of the site without being a racist, however! Some seem to say that if you're against the traveller site at Church Grove, you're automatically a racist.

People object to all sorts of planning issues for all sorts of reasons. Just look at the discussions about the Dominos Pizza and Tesco planning proposals (in Crofton Park, if I remember correctly) and see how people oppose those. Or Loampit Vale and the campaigns to oppose those private housing developments.

(Although yes, some people on this blog ARE ignorant and post some horrible things.)

I would of thought that sites in urban areas are unpopular with travelers because they are often limited in terms of space and far from the place where they make their living, which is in the countryside, especially at this time of year.

There are a lot of sensible practical reasons to question this decision.

It is not unreasonable for people to be concerned about new developments in their neighbourhood and express and opinion.

Accusations of bigotry and racism are a cheap shot hoping to silence questions and criticism. Better to trust Lewisham Council to make a wise and sensible decision?

You don't have to look far to find evidence of poor decision making, neglect and incompetence in local government.

Maybe if more people took a interest in developments in their neighbourhood, we might all benefit from improvements rather than suffer urban decline that blights many parts of inner London.

Local debates like this are a healthy thing, but they need to well informed. Sadly it must suffer the political trolls who tend to kill off any reasonable discussion with their provocations.

Apologies for a long post [in two parts] but I thought you might be interested in hearing from someone who lives in Church Grove. There are a number of reasons we're objecting to this second plan for the site. The main one is to do with access, which I think most of you will have read the details about on the Newshopper site. But in essence, Gypsy/traveller caravans are often 2.55 metres in width, whereas the gap available in the road, between parked cars and opposite curb is only 2.5/2.6 metres (the Council's own measurement). This does not allow for the truck which is legally required to pull such large trailer caravans, which will have wing mirrors even wider. In short, it is impossible for a truck and trailer to get down the road, even driving with wheels on the 96 cm wide pavement. Clearly, this will put residents at risk of injury and cause damage to property, vehicles, etc. It's probably also impossible for such a truck/trailer to even turn into the street, particularly when there are always cars parked at the end of it, and any attempt to do so will of course cause disruption and tail-backs on an already busy Ladywell Road.

The access issue was not fully taken into account in the Council's first plans. When we raised it with them they refused to answer the question (probably because they were by then too far down the path, had spent a lot of money on plans and had to find a home for the travellers they were moving from Thurston Road). After the Thurston Road travellers relinquished their licences and left Lewisham, the Council told us that they no longer required Watergate School for a travellers' site. They said that they needed to look for a bigger site - 9 pitches, instead of the 5 possible at our site, and didn't want to split this between two sites.

Without going into all the details, up until 2010 Lewisham had a target of providing 9 pitches. This however was removed by the London Mayor, who gave local authorities the responsibility of setting their own targets. According to new Government guidance, the way LAs should do this is by establishing actual need, which should be based on traveller applications for pitches. Lewisham has had no such applications so instead it undertook a survey of Lewisham travellers to try to establish need. But only 11 surveys were returned out of 490 travellers. Not one of these actually asks for a pitch, although some say they would like to see more pitches in Lewisham. Only one said he would like to live at Church Grove. 7 of the 11 said they were happy in social housing. The Council is trying to spin this into a need for 5 pitches, despite the fact such a small sample cannot be used to even guess at actual need.

Current Government guidance, and the Human Rights Act, makes if very clear that Local Authorities must take into account the needs of both traveller and settled communities when choosing a site for pitches. Here's the thing: Church Grove is a real community, not one that came together just to fight a planning application. For example, long before the original plans for a traveller site appeared, the community held a street party every year, for no other reason than to celebrate the community's existence. My partner and I had friends in this street and very much wanted to move here. When they told us a couple were moving out we went straight round there and put in an offer, so they didn't even have to go through an estate agent. Everyone knows everyone here.

In short, we have a situation where the Council is putting a community under stress and at risk of injury/property damage for a site that no other community is interested in. It's not Church Grove against the travellers; it's our community against the Council's need to save face - embarrassed at being the only London Borough not to have a travellers' site.

Oh, one final thing. Church Grove is in a conservation area. The Council's own rules for conservation areas is that nothing should be built next to one that isn't in keeping with it. With the original plans, they intended to spend a lot of money on building eco-friendly utility blocks for the travellers, etc, so they would blend in. This raises the question of whether they intend to do the same again, in a much more austere age, or if they are just going to ignore their conservations rules totally.

OK there is no doubt this is a sensative issue that is essentially about people's rigths in society. Travelling communities have legal rights and Councils have a duty to provide suitable sites. This is how it is whether we like it or not. The way I see it is that Lewisham Council have a great responsibility to find a suitable site. In my view what they have done is identify a very unsuitable site, hence the response of local residents to both the previous attempt to locate the site at the end of Church Grove and this re-newed enthusiasm for the same site. It is unsuitable because of the restricted access through the tiny street which is a council designated Conservation Area. Whilst the residents of Church Grove are unable to make the most minor of alterations to their property without permission from the Council, they have no say in whether over-sized caravans and trucks can use the tiny road for access day and night. The Council could have chosen other sites that were identified by an external Consultant (at tax payers expense) - including the Consultant's preferred option of the car park next to the Council offices, but they chose not to (there is no public vote on such a decision).

Local residents have had to suffer suggestions from members of the council themselves, that they are being racist in highlighting that it is not a suitalbe site. What I don't understand though is why Lewisham Council did not make provision for the Thurston Road Travellers (and any others requiring a site) IN the new Lewishham Gateway development. It would have been a perfect opportunity to demonstrate their committment to the Traveller population by providing a purpose built site right in the middle of Lewisham. Perhaps there is NIMBYism going on afterall - "lets tuck the site away down a completely unsuitable road rather make new provision or have it next to our offices". I would love an answer to this from the council. Perhaps it is not too late as I understand that new developers are taking over the work - perhaps Lewisham council could start some discussions with them about Traveller site provision?

I support travellers having sites. I used to live on Church Grove in the 1990's and it really isn't practical to put it there though - not least because you can't fit a caravan down the road. Last time this came up there was a better site near the town hall, but I imagine that's too close for comfort for the Mayor! I suspect this is the Mayor trying to dig himself out a of hole as the Council closed the old site by Lewisham Station without creating a new one. His attitude seems to be a mile away from his leader, Ed Milliband, who said in his conference speech that the Labour Party was going to be for the majority that play by the rules. Looks like its the same old self-serving politicians in Lewisham!

I support travellers having sites. I used to live on Church Grove in the 1990's and it really isn't practical to put it there though - not least because you can't fit a caravan down the road. Last time this came up there was a better site near the town hall, but I imagine that's too close for comfort for the Mayor! I suspect this is the Mayor trying to dig himself out a of hole as the Council closed the old site by Lewisham Station without creating a new one. His attitude seems to be a mile away from his leader, Ed Milliband, who said in his conference speech that the Labour Party was going to be for the majority that play by the rules. Looks like its the same old self-serving politicians in Lewisham!